June, 1882.| 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. 
15 
Various appendages formed of altered cells, and called 
trichomes, are distinguished as hair bristles, prickles, and 
scales, each characterised by qualities indicative of these 
organs, according to length, position, hardness, &c. 
The brown, chafflike substance on ferns, called rameuta, 
from resembling chips or shavings, is formed of greatly elon- 
gated cells. When cells secrete peculiar substances they are 
called glands ; in the orange they secrete a fragrant oil ; in 
the nettle an irritating fluid ; in the sun-dew a viscid solu- 
tion ; in an acacia a kind of honey, and so on.” 
The foregoing remarks are to serve as a stimulus to such 
members as have leisure to pursue this fascinating branch of 
natural science. 
|CegaI anb Jttag mtaml 
MAGISTERIAL INQUIRY. 
A MAGISTERIAL inquiry, touching the death of Edwin Adams, 
chemist and druggist, Heathcote, was held by James Christie, 
Esq., J.P., at the Heathcote Hotel, on the 10th May, when 
the following depositions were taken : — 
Henry Scobell, sworn, deposed— I am a legally qualified 
medical practitioner, residing at Heathcote. Knew the 
deceased, Mr. Adams, and was in his company from one till a 
quarter to three o’clock yesterday afternoon, when I was called 
away. He made a hearty dinner, and when I left him was 
sitting by the fire reading a paper ; he appeared to be in his 
usual state of health. When I returned home at six o’clock I 
heard that I had been sent for to see him, and that he was dead. 
Daniel Pammenter, sworn, stated— I am an hotelkeeper, 
residing at Heathcote. Knew the deceased Mr. Edwin Adams, 
who resided opposite the hotel, and carried on the business of 
a chemist and druggist. He was a frequent visitor at the 
hotel, and occasionally had his meals here. About seven 
minutes past five o’clock yesterday evening, I saw him come 
from the garden, shut the gate, and walk along the verandah, 
apparently in his usual health. A few minutes after Mary 
Young called me to see the deceased, whom I found lying across 
the chair with his feet on the floor, and his head nearly touch- 
ing the floor with a paper on the table before him, he appeared 
to have been reading. Lifted him up and immediately sent 
for medical assistance. Did not at first think he was dead, 
but as I could not find any signs of his breathing, and as he 
did not come to, I thought he was dead. Have known deceased 
for over twenty years. Reported the matter to the police at 
once. 
James Charles M‘Kee, sworn— I am a legally qualified 
medical practitioner, residing at Heathcote. I was called to 
see the deceased about a quarter past five o’clock yesterday 
evening. When I arrived, and examined him, I found life 
extinct. Have since made a post-mortem examination of the 
body , and found the immediate cause of death was serous 
apoplexy. His heart was healthy, but his liver was very much 
enlarged, and the kidneys contracted. There was food in the 
stomach, and the stomach had a healthy appearance. The 
amount of serous effusion into the brain was sufficient to cause 
instantaneous death. 
A decision was given to the effect that death resulted from 
serous apoplexy. 
PROSECUTION UNDER THE PHARMACY ACT. 
T T n th m e u City Pol i c e Court, Ballarat, on the 20th May, before Mr, 
■y. .F* J“ n ’ an( * a bench of honorary magistrates, 
Alfred Perkins was proceeded against by Detective Hyland 
under the Pharmacy Act, 40 Viet., No. 558, clause 25, sub- 
section 1. The clause referred to applies to any person, not 
being a registered pharmaceutical chemist, who carries on or 
attempts to carry on business as a chemist or druggist or 
homoeopathic chemist, or either. The maximum penalty for 
an infringement of such regulation is a fine of £10 and impri- 
sonment in adition for six months. r 
Mr. Gaunt appeared for the defendant ; Detective Hvland 
conducted the case. J 
- 3?' 6 witnes s called was Mr. Harry Shillinglaw, registrar 
of the Pharmacy Board of Victoria. He produced the Gazette 
containing the formal appointment of the board, also his own 
appointment as registrar. Witness produced the register of 
pharmaceutical chemists duly qualified under the Act, and 
not know defendant. No such name as 
tnat ot Alfred Perkins appeared on the register. 
To Mr. Gaunt— The name of Robert Dixon Bannister, of 
Ballarat, appears on the register as a pharmaceutical chemist 
of Victoria. 
Constable Corrigan, of Ballarat West, gave evidence to the 
effect that on the 16th inst. he purchased from the defendant, 
at a shop in Sturt-streef, a bottle of medicine. Witness gave 
defendant the piece of paper produced. Perkins then asked 
him if he would like a homoeopathic preparation, to which he 
replied in the affirmative. Defendant then gave witness the 
bottle of belladonna produced, for which he paid one shilling. 
To Mr. Gaunt — Had never been in the shop before to my 
knowledge. I received the prescription from Detective Hyland. 
Do not know who wrote it. The label on the bottle produced 
is “ Belladonna — Posion. This bottle is labelled poison in 
conformity with the Act for the Sale of Poisons. R. D. 
Bannister, dispensing chemist, 5 Sturt-street.” The shop has 
all the appearance, both outside and inside, of being a dis- 
pensing chemist’s shop. I was supplied with the medicine by 
defendant, from which fact I would presume he was a dispens- 
ing chemist. 
Mr. Gaunt — So you would term Messrs. Eyres Bros, dis- 
pensing chemists for selling blues tone or arsenic to their 
customers ? 
Witness continued. — I do not know whether I can buy the 
same at any shop. Do not know whether I could get it at 
Hammond’s. Have never seen belladonna retailed in public- 
houses or groceries. 
Mr. Shillinglaw, re-examined, stated that if the contents of 
the bottle were belladonna they were poison. Belladonna was 
not a patent medicine. No storekeeper had power to sell 
poisons without authority. 
To Mr. Gaunt — I am not a chemist. 
Mr. H. Brind, who was next examined, stated that he had 
been a chemist for a number of years. Storekeepers had no 
authority to sell belladonna. He supposed what was in the 
bottle produced was a preparation. Was not acquainted with 
defendant. Belladonna was used both externally and inter- 
nally. If what was in the bottle was strong, it would be a poison. 
Knew the whereabouts of Mr. Bannister’s shop. Mr. Bannister 
had not been carrying on business there personally for the last 
two or three years. Witness knew that he was in Sydney 
receiving a salary. 
To Mr. Gaunt — Mr. Bannister had not been occupying the 
shop at least for twelve or eighteen months to my knowledge. 
I do not know that he was paying rent for it, or deriving 
profits therefrom. Captain Bloomfield informed me that Mr. 
Bannister was occupying a position of profit in Sydney. 
Detective Hyland stated that he knew defendant personally 
to have been connected with the shop during the last three or 
four years. Witness served the summons in the present instance 
on the 17th inst., at the shop. Witness told defendant he was 
instructed to take proceedings, as he was not registered under 
the Pharmacy Act. Defendant, in reply, then said he knew 
that he was in a false position, but that he had been studying 
for the last five years at the School of Mines, in order to pass 
the necessary examination. He stated that he was about to 
write to the board to ask if he would be allowed to pass a 
modified examination. Defendant also informed witness that 
Mr. Bannister was in Sydney, and had not been in Ballarat 
since the Melbourne Exhibition, and that the business was for 
sale. Perkins also stated he had asked Mr. Bannister to give 
him increased facilities, and that he had had sufficient 
experience in the shop to pass an examination. Witness 
noticed, on the left hand wall when entering the shop, printing 
to the following effect : — “ R. D. Bannister, late C. Pleasance, 
homoeopathic chemist.” The shop, to all appearances, was a 
chemist s shop, and had within it coloured bottles, &c. 
To Mr. Gaunt I have not known Mr. Perkins to make up 
the prescriptions of a legally qualified medical practitioner. 
Ihe writing on the paper produced by Constable Corrigan is 
not a prescription. I did not write on the paper — “ Is. — Bella- 
donna.” I do not think it necessary to tell you who did. The 
paper should not have been put in as evidence. It was 
merely asking for a shilling’s worth of belladonna. I will not 
tell you who wrote the prescription unless directed to do so by 
the bench. I asked a chemist to write it for me, and he did 
a ci 1 
inis closed the proceedings for the prosecution, and Mr. 
Gaunt submitted that no case had been made out. There was 
nothing in the Act under which the complaint was brought to 
prevent any person selling drugs, and if he (Mr. Gaunt) so 
chose he could keep in his chambers Turkey rhubarb or ialup, 
and physic his clients, if it would do them any good. There 
